Posted: Mar 15, 2018 12:57 am
by UltimoReducto
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Well, there's these:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx
APA on Children Raised by Gay and Lesbian Parents

How do these children fare?

On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

In 2004, the APA Council of Representatives adopted a policy resolution including the following statement based on a review of the best available science:

There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999); See the full resolution on the Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children webpage.

APA has continued to monitor the research since 2004 and report that research in our amicus briefs, such as in the Gill vs. OPM case. On the basis of the research, APA continues to oppose any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services.


http://www.hrc.org/resources/professional-organizations-on-lgbt-parenting

Blanket proclamations from vested interests are always so phony. They’d be more convincing if they weren’t so incessant about shutting down discussion. It’s anti-science. The scientific thing to do, if they were confident, is as always to make concessions to opposing views by admitting and stressing the limits of what they know. Please, no references to that proverbial “mountain of evidence”. In this case they have nothing more than a few surveys that conspicuously avoid any real objective measures. Particularly egregious is a very popular attempt to measure passivity by the number of outbursts in school and then evaluate the parents of the most drugged up zombie-like children, lesbians, as quantitatively BETTER. That’s a pure judgement call which either way suggests there IS a difference, between two qualitatively different things. From the outset there’s the issue they don’t care to address of single motherhood being so incredibly toxic. How does the presence of a second female solve the problem created by the first? Well in the eyes of many of these authors, they explicitly say a child is better off without a father or male influence. Contortions are necessary to show that homosexuals males are effeminate enough to still be okay. All the right people...

Whether or not the artificial is better than the natural, science is an end not a means. Skeptiks need to be skeptical and reject the APA’s conclusion that adoption agencies ought to be one size fits all.